Talk:British cuisine/Catalogs

Article Checklist for "British cuisine/Catalogs"

Workgroup category or categories	Food Science Workgroup [Categories OK]
Article status	Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete
Underlinked article?	Yes
Basic cleanup done?	Yes
Checklist last edited by	Derek Harkness 04:31, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.

---

Order

I wonder if this list would be more usefull if we devided it into kinds. E.g. Starters, Main courses, Deserts. Or maybe by food group e.g. fish, meat, vegetable, etc. Derek Harkness 04:31, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

That's probably a good idea if the list grows much longer, as it easily could if a Brit. food fancier, for instance, started adding lots of different cheeses, creams, berries, fishes, etc. Food groups would probably be easier, since one man's starter is another man's main course. Hayford Peirce 13:17, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

I looked at cheeses, while it would be possible to list all British made cheese styles or brands, that would take the list beyond famous/well known and into comprehensive. I've already listed the ones that I think are well known (based on me knowing them v. not knowing them). Are we going to list every food item made in the UK or are we drawing a line somewhere, if so where should the line be drawn? Derek Harkness 09:29, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

More data

To make this a "true" catalog(ue), and not just a list, we need to make a table of this, and think of some facts we can identify for each dish. For example: type (main course, side dish, dessert, beverage--but these could be subheadings as Derek suggests); calories for average serving; definition (you can use the {{r}} template for this, see CZ:Definitions)...what else? --Larry Sanger 10:46, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm confused on this whole Catalog/Table business. We've (successfully) turned the Famous tennis players from a Catalog to a Table, but in a number of places Authors and Editors are urged to look at Catalog of religions to see precisely what a Catalog is. BUT -- at that site it is nothing but a list, absolutely NOT a Table. If converting existing Catalogs (and so-called mere lists) into Tables is so important, why has the religion one not been made into a table? Another point: creating tables is so *extremely* difficult that, apparently only Chris Day and Richard King venture into these murky waters. If it were *easy* to do, more authors might at least make the attempt. I myself certainly never will.... Hayford Peirce 11:49, 1 August 2007 (CDT)